UK Tory slams Abbott’s climate “insult”

Lord Deben, head of the UK Committee on Climate Change and Tory politician, has slammed the Abbott Government’s push to pull back climate change policies:

“It lets down the whole British tradition that a country should have become so selfish about this issue that it’s prepared to spoil the efforts of others and to foil what very much less rich countries are doing…All that pollution which Australia is pushing into the atmosphere is of course changing my climate. It’s a real insult to the sovereignty of other countries…It’s wholly contrary to the science, it’s wholly contradictory to the interests of Australia and I hope that many people in Australia will see when the rest of the world is going in the right direction what nonsense it is for them to be going backwards.”

I do wonder where the conservative greenies are in Australia.

Comments

  1. LabrynthMEMBER

    “All that pollution which Australia is pushing into the atmosphere is of course changing my climate.”

    Without going into the debate about climate change being caused by humans, Australia’s contributions are negligible no matter how high per capita we pollute. The environment doesn’t recognise borders and so as a nation there isn’t much we can do to reduce our pollution that will have any meaningful effect on the environment.

      • LabrynthMEMBER

        My point is that if we were serious we would stop exporting coal. The carbon tax was implemented to make it look like we were doing something. The carbon tax has had little effect in reducing our emissions and the only way to really tackle climate change would be to commit economic suicide.

        His answer to my question is that other nations who are poorer such as Portugal and South Africa are doing it so why aren’t we who are richer doing more.

        I ask, if we halved our emissions by 50% tomorrow, would it stop climate change?

        The obvious answer is no, and unless there was a legitimate commitment from every other nation to reduce their emissions there is no point trying. The only way to get all the nations to work together is for there to be a cataclysmic event or a one world government.

      • Your argument is spot on, Labyrinth. “…..if we were serious we would stop exporting coal…..”

        And the Saudis would stop exporting oil.

        And one of Al Gore’s first acts on becoming global Fuehrer would be to invade Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq to put stoppers on their oil wells.

      • PhilBest – stopping oil exports would be terrible. Never mind the combustion engines we make plastic from the stuff. It’s got it’s own pollution problems but it’s not as bad for carbon for a start.
        Actually if we could find a way to make plastics from coal and do something useful with the stuff rather than burning it. Probably to expensive but it would be nice.

      • DrBob127MEMBER

        … and if we were serious about reducing the impacts of smoking we would just ban cigarettes. The fact that cigarettes are still legally available undermines these “health” scientists who say it is harmful.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        @drbob

        and if we were serious about reducing the impacts of smoking we would just ban cigarettes. The fact that cigarettes are still legally available undermines these “health” scientists who say it is harmful

        Doesn’t it?!?!?! It makes mockery of their findings I can tell you from personal experience doctors and nurses are pissed off everytime they have to spend more time on smoker than leaves them available to deal with others.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Doesn’t it?!?!?!

        Only if you subscribe to the belief anything shown to be harmful should be made illegal.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Like asbestos? Nah lets just tax it. That’ll work.

        Holy non-sequitur, Batman !

      • migtronixMEMBER

        First of all how is that possibly a non sequitor to the statement ” harmful substance should be made illegal” ? Just because you say a word doesn’t mean you’re applying it correctly.

        Secondly:
        As tobacco use grows in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, tobacco mortality is predicted to increase tenfold compared to the last century

        http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/how_corporate_america_exports_disease_to_the_rest_of_the_world/

        I’d say the body count is far far higher that asbestos so you want to give poor logic one more spin there? You’re as bad as 3d, nothing sinks in.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        First of all how is that possibly a non sequitor to the statement ” harmful substance should be made illegal” ?

        We were talking about smoking, not asbestos.

        It does not follow that because an appropriate way to deal with one issue (smoking) is regulation, taxation, education campaigns and social disapproval, the the same method is appropriate for a completely different issue (asbestos).

        Just because you say a word doesn’t mean you’re applying it correctly.

        Indeed.

        I’d say the body count is far far higher that asbestos so you want to give poor logic one more spin there?

        Holy non-sequitur, Batman !

      • migtronixMEMBER

        WTF? So now the death toll has nothing to do with whether you’re treating a similar public health risk? Just blows me away…

        Show me where regulation/public awareness campaigns/taxation would have delivered a lower death toll and lower public healthcare costs than banning tobacco sales?

        But I already hear you: Holy Same Old Reply Batman

      • migtronixMEMBER

        @drsmithy I’m in astonished awe of you’re libertarian attitude and constant resolve to defend the indefensible.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        But I already hear you: Holy Same Old Reply Batman

        Yes. Because they are.

        If you want a different response, stop posting end-to-end logical fallacies, because I’m not going to waste much effort trying to figure out which conclusion your undisciplined reasoning and haphazard approach to debate will leap to next, arguing against positions I have never even vaguely suggested, or deciphering personal attacks that don’t even have the courtesy to be amusing.

        The way you move goalposts around, your account name should be “groundskeeper”.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Logical fallacies are you struggle with smithy not me, that’s why I can come with alternate metaphors and you not so much. Like accusing me insults when they’re your stock and trade (“article of faith for libertarians”).

        Yes you protest too much and argue too poorly.

        Police: you have a knife and there’s a bloody body with knife wounds next to.
        Drsmithy: Holy Non Sequitor batman !
        Police:*whack*

      • I have to agree that Carbon Tax is a Failure. Firstly, you have no control of how your energy is produced. My power bill went up and our power where I live is derived from hydro. What happens is the energy providers or polluters simply add the tax on to the every end user and they ADD a markup. That’s right, they profit from the tax by marking it up. What incentive is this to a company to stop polluting when they can profit from the tax? Australia should immediately cut all coal exports or at least limit it if you were interested in committing to reduction of carbon. If we halved our export and doubled the cost of our coal, that would have a greater incentive on the bigger world polluters, China, who were building a coal burning electricity plant every week. To say Australia is going backwards because we have a LNP Tory leader who deludes himself that global warming does not exist is a little unfair to blame majority of Australians who do not support his environmental terrorism. It is like saying that the majority of English supported Poll tax, that this politicians party introduced under thatcher. A tax for the benefit of the rich.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Is taxation somehow doing something? Do tell how does that work to reduce emission?

      • The Carbon Tax?
        Isn’t it obvious?

        I would have thought anyone reading these posts doesn’t require an explanation of the behavioural modifying influence of taxation.

      • DrBob127MEMBER

        “I would have thought anyone reading these posts doesn’t require an explanation of the behavioural modifying influence of taxation.”

        I would also have thought so …

      • migtronixMEMBER

        behavioural modifying influence of taxation.

        Oh yes because we all stopped working when income tax was introduced…

      • DrBob127MEMBER

        “Oh yes because we all stopped working when income tax was introduced…”

        give me strength.

        I’m not going to argue with you today Mig.

        I think you know what is being said is true (because you seem to be quite clever). But are just looking to argue the point like a smart arse because libertarians just don’t like taxes.

        Not today.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        But you like taxes precisely because they don’t stop anything otherwise the government would go broke so it’s not me with the dissonance

      • DrBob127MEMBER

        “But you like taxes precisely because they don’t stop anything ”

        umm yeah that’s it …. good one.

        Do you get a sore neck lugging around that massive brain all day?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Oh yes because we all stopped working when income tax was introduced…

        Holy non-sequitur, Batman !

        Would you argue that removing income taxation would have no impact ? Because the insistence that doing so would reduce (if not eliminate) unemployment is a fairly strong article of faith amongst libertarians.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Not this one, taxation has nothing to do with eliminating unemployment but incentives, just because the incentives are better doesn’t mean the appetite to hire magically appear. But it does mean those with work are less burdened and potentially can spend more productively – good luck with that in this society!

      • migtronixMEMBER

        There’s a problem with your links, and yes I did go through them, other than that I you don’t need peer reviewed publications in climate science to read a time series, the people commenting on his predictions themselves utterly failed at theirs! No one is Carter should be able to predict the weather but those other guys definitely should!

      • DrBob127MEMBER

        “No one is Carter should be able to predict the weather but those other guys definitely should!”

        more rambling, bordering on incoherence.

        just give it up Mig. You are not doing yourself any favours

      • migtronixMEMBER

        @DrBob more rambling, bordering on incoherence.

        just give it up Mig. You are not doing yourself any favours

        I would have given up but for your challenge so incongruously delivered.

        What was your rambling, completely inexplicably, about?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        No one is Carter should be able to predict the weather but those other guys definitely should!

        Weather != climate.

    • The argument that it’s pointless for Australia to bother reducing our emissions because we barely emit anything is a pretty stupid one.

      Out of 196 countries in the world, Australia is the 17th largest emitter of Co2. We’re in the top 10% of countries in terms of quantity of Co2 emitted.

      The reality is that with the exception of the US and China, pretty much all countries are individually responsible for a negligible amount of Co2, but collectively they make up the majority of emissions.

      Any mitigation based solution must include the supposedly small emitters like Australia.

      • Depends on how you look at it.

        For onshore burning of fossil fuels, we’re negligible.

        From a holistic view, every single tonne of mined coal is burnt and due to where the majority is burned, it’s likely that it could affect the weather in England.

        If we don’t dig it, China can’t burn it.

    • chrisc5702MEMBER

      Since Australia is a democracy and has a newly elected government, Lord Deben’s comments apply to the Australian electorate generally, and to those who voted in Abbott specifically. Yes, you, you selfish, complacent, antiscience , ignorant lot.

      • Especially after those Labor guys and gals (with help from the Greens) did such a good job!

        Thanks God we have the British aristocracy to put us grubby colonials in our place.

  2. “I do wonder where the conservative greenies are in Australia.”

    I’ve said for years that their is a space in the political spectrum for a “Green Liberals” party.

    • Exactly. Where is the fiscally conservative, socially liberal, environmentally-concerned but non-union affiliated party? Turnbull ticks most of those boxes, but there’s no-one else.

      For me, environmental policy trumps all other issues, so it has to be the Greens, but I’m less than enthused about some of their economic policies.

      • “Exactly. Where is the fiscally conservative, socially liberal, environmentally-concerned but non-union affiliated party? Turnbull ticks most of those boxes, but there’s no-one else.”

        Yep. And Malcolm is not going to give up his ministerial office to become a minor party backbencher so we need to look for leaders elsewhere.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Exactly. Where is the fiscally conservative, socially liberal, environmentally-concerned but non-union affiliated party?

        They’re all having too much fun with their unicorns and flying pigs.

      • There is another term for Malcolm Turnbull, and that is something like the American term “Republican in Name Only” (RINO).

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      I’ve said for years that their is a space in the political spectrum for a “Green Liberals” party.

      I’m not sure such a thing is possible.

      Environmental responsibility, by its nature, requires pro-active policy and strong regulation. I’m sceptical that can be compatible with “Liberal” philosophy.

      • Market economics is all about making choices in the allocation of scarce resources based on pricing signals.

        So where ever there is environmental failure, it comes down to a flaw in market pricing i.e. the “externalities” are not properly captured in the market price.

        Small “L” economic liberals should have no problem with supporting regulation that fixes market failure.

        Ipso facto there is nothing inherently incompatible with “environmentalism” and small “L” economic liberalism.

      • interested party

        “Market economics is all about making choices in the allocation of scarce resources based on pricing signals.”

        No it’s not.
        It’s about the conversion of everything you need into a commodity, taking away public access, then selling it back to society through a debt based slave system. The pricing signals are a reflection on how much the public can bear to pay for these items.

  3. migtronixMEMBER

    All that pollution which Australia is pushing into the atmosphere is of course changing my climate

    LOL yes those 26 millions people on a land mass 100x times bigger tha UK at a distance >> than China from UK with 50 millions must causing you all rain eh Lord?

    More like deer Lord.

    It’s wholly contrary to the science, it’s wholly contradictory to the interests of Australia and I hope that many people in Australia will see when the rest of the world is going in the right direction what nonsense it is for them to be going backwards.

    Also incorrect if the rest of the world was “going” in the “right” direction (contradictions to science might be oooh I don’t know an interest bearing monetary unit?) the negligible impact and isolation of Australia would suggest we don’t have to do diddly and the world saves itself just fine!

    Now lets look into this good peer

    Son of a Church of England minister, Gummer is the brother of Peter Gummer, Baron Chadlington, one of the foremost players in the British PR industry. He studied at the King’s School, Rochester before going on to read History at Selwyn College, Cambridge. Whilst there, as chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association and later President of the Cambridge Union Society, he was a member of what became known as the Cambridge Mafia – a group of future Conservative Cabinet ministers, including Leon Brittan, Michael Howard, Kenneth Clarke, Norman Lamont, and Norman Fowler

    Oh yes I can now see how this creature (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9498568/The-tangled-tale-of-Lord-Deben-and-a-dodgy-Severn-barrage.html) is the right man to talk about scientific contradictions!!

    At the centre of the picture is David Cameron, who last month nominated Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer) as the new chairman of the influential and supposedly “independent” Committee on Climate Change, set up to advise government on energy policy under the Climate Change Act. This is despite the fact that Lord Deben’s array of environmental business interests includes chairmanship of Forewind Ltd, a consortium of four energy firms planning the world’s largest, and most heavily subsidised, offshore wind farm in the North Sea.

    Shocked!!! Shocked I tell you!!

    • He is also a keen proponent of widespread fracking being employed across the UK. He abhors the widespread ‘Trotskyite’ influence that has captured much of the environmental movement and strongly criticises, in his words, the’Christine Milne school of thinking’…

      ‘Where are the Conservative greenies in Australia – everywhere!! Most are keen for appropriate environmental measures to protect our waterways, to limit salination of the land, to ensure forests remain for future generations and understand the need reduce hazardous airborne chemical particulars from vehicle and industrial sources. Many even recycle 😉

      • …and with their heads firmly planted in the sand on climate change.

        Everything you list are worthy environmental causes, backed by solid science (which I assume you don’t dispute). Why then the absolute intransigence on climate change? Its not like you’re just skeptical or suspicious. You guys are absolutely 100% convinced that a) its not happening, b) if it is happening its due to natural variability, c) if it is due to human activity its too expensive to fix anyway, d) besides its all a fraud.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        @lorax because climate always changes, wanting the Earth to stop still is vain and useless

      • migtronixMEMBER

        We’ll never win this 3d the level of emotional attachment by supporters us breathtaking

      • Re IPA.

        Seeing Andrew Bolt as a source for climate facts was enough for me.

        While I can understand debate about when and how fast Australia ought act, there is virtually no doubt in the climate scientist community that climate change is real, caused largely by CO2 emission by human activity and that the end result is bad for most of us (but with some regions and people benefitting).

        The IPA are part of the denialist pseudo science set.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

        “No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.”

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        because climate always changes, wanting the Earth to stop still is vain and useless

        Nice to see we’ve moved from non-sequiturs to straw men. Everyone needs a bit of variety.

      • he level of emotional attachment by supporters us breathtaking

        If anyone is being irrational, illogical and emotional it is the deniers. I can point to near unanimous scientific consensus, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, the support of every national scientific academy in the developed world.

        What can you point to? Gut feel?

      • migtronixMEMBER

        @lorax fair point Lorax — my thing isn’t gut feeling its knowing that models on which so much of the predictions and peer-reviewed papers are based on are rubbish. I know they’re rubbish because the code was leaked a few years ago and it wasn’t the code is badly written its that there comments all over it when the coders are like “//had to add 0.9203 as factor, why? They told me to.”
        it was clear that they were fudging factors until they got the outcomes they wanted, and thats why they haven’t been able to predict outcomes either.

        Now if the diagnosis is correct despite the poor models that’s a different matter altogether and I still don’t see how taxing is a good solution — has it solved Londons congestion? Hardly.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        @drsmithy EXACTLY! Those IPCC lines going right through the center of the observed data up to 00 (then diverges) is made up statistical variance to match a known outcome. Thanks for helping out visually.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

        And I know you’re going to tell Dr Morner who’s been studying shore erosion on sand islands and athols for 35 years is debunked too and that’s where we are in this debate, its just one side debunk the other side debunk but don’t ever think there isn’t an overwhelming consensus because there is – and beside all those guys who don’t agree are debunked anyway.

        But notice I deliberately didn’t ever link to a clearly deeply partisan site for the references.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Those IPCC lines going right through the center of the observed data up to 00 (then diverges) is made up statistical variance to match a known outcome.

        The predictions seem to match the data reasonably well from where I’m sitting.

        At least from the scientists. The “sceptics” all appear pretty dismal.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        The world’s first great civilisations appear to have collapsed because of an ancient episode of climate change– according to new research carried out by scientists and archaeologists.

        Their investigation demonstrates that the Bronze Age ‘megacities’ of the Indus Valley region of Pakistan and north-west India declined during the 21st and 20th centuries BC and never recovered – because of a dramatic increase in drought conditions

        You read that right climate change, same as it ever it was.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/revealed-how-climate-change-ended-worlds-first-great-civilisations-9164248.html

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        You read that right climate change, same as it ever it was.

        Holy non-sequitur, Batman !

      • migtronix, so you are arguing that you can detect flaws in the source code that other climate scientists (peers) cannot? Or, the flawed code is being deliberately ignored/dicounted, or the flawed code is being deliberately concealed, or all of the above?

        If any one of the above were true it would be extraordinary. I’m not saying its impossible, but it would certainly be an extraordinary scandal.

        Given the amount of scrutiny climate science has been under in recent years, it seems very very unlikely that any of this would be true.

    • Ad hominen attacks and straw men aside I would suggest that as a nation that is in the top 10% of CO2 producers, the top 6% of producers per capita and a member of the G20 and similar bodies we should show some leadership on this issue.

      Unfortunately leadership is a quality that is missing from our modern conservative party.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        Again I have to explain logic and reasoning to you lot, examining possible conflicts of interest is not an ad homonim, the strawman is you suggesting that 25 million of the 7 billion (less than 1%) account for 10% of emissions when we don’t even have a manufacturing sector. Purely absurd! You idiots are so married to this thing that you fail at logic, fail at science (there no warning currently), fail at math and fail at rhetoric! Brilliant!

        People who live in cities worry about over population, climate change, those who don’t well don’t. Guess why?

      • Ad Hominem – Attacking someone’s character rather than their argument.

        “Oh yes I can now see how this creature…”

        Similarly, having interests in a UK based wind farm hardly weighs on his argument that Australia is not pulling it’s weight.

        Next – I didn’t suggest that Australia produces 10% of CO2 emissions. I stated that we are in the top 10% of nations.

        Finally, please refrain from insults. There is no need for that.

      • migtronixMEMBER

        And I was attacking his argument by highlighting the obvious financial (most heavily subsidised) interest they gentleman has in the outcome of his inquiry.

        We are in the 10% of emitters but fast losing ground on that — through no lack of effort mind — and that’s w/o observing that its one the tiniest populations in one of the biggest land masses on Earth! Meaning we will alway punch above our weight in that regard. Always.

        Please refrain from insulting my intelligence there is no need for that!

    • migtronixMEMBER

      If Cameron had put in a Big Oil guy you’d all be screaming bloody murder — correctly — its not different the economic bias is in the other direction.

  4. “I do wonder where the conservative greenies are in Australia.”

    Hanging out with unicorns, fairies and Santa Claus.

    • Yeah, and many of their conservatives brothers believe in an invisible hand and rational individuals. I don’t which is more implausible!

  5. “I do wonder where the conservative greenies are in Australia.”

    our conservatives have idols on the other side of Atlantic (Bush, Palin, …). European conservatives are not conservative enough for Abbott.

    They are not against abortus, LGBT, they not religious enough, they don’t like guns, and they don’t kill people who try to cross their borders…

  6. I am always amazed at how the majority are so ignorant as to how much energy each individual consume on a daily basis and the lack of thought given to how we should be using fossil fuels with maximum efficiency and conserving as much as possible for the future; not burning them doing useless activities like Peter Drucker stated as follows:

    “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all”

    The following link has information on how much coal, gas and petrol is used to generate 1kWh of electricity:

    http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=2

    Amount of fuel used to generate one kilowatthour (kwh):
    1. Coal = 0.00054 short tons or 1.09 pounds
    2. Natural gas = 0.00796 Mcf (1,000 cubic feet)
    3. Petroleum = 0.00188 barrels (or 0.08 gallons)

    Even with an electricity bill based on coal fired energy, and say 300kWh consumed every month, you will be burning around 150kg of coal. Just picture 30 x 5kg bags of coal per house hold per month.

    If people think we should just continue on as “business as usual” and not increase research and development to get us out of this fossil fuel dependence then to me that just shows great ignorance and lack of a good education.

    Climate change or not, you cannot argue that we should be conserving our precious resources, using them wisely and intelligently but this is something most of the world seems blind to, especially Australia.

  7. The biggest give-away in all these arguments, is that as first world nations hobble their own industries, production is diverted even faster than otherwise to developing nations that actually have more carbon intensive economies.

    Refer Prins, Rayner et al, “How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course”.

    Also Prins and Rayner: “The Wrong Trousers: Radically Re-thinking Climate Policy”.

    The fact that so many climate alarmist are prepared to shrug this off with “oh, that’s a worthy objective anyway” – Pachauri himself has said so – is a massive give-away about their sincerity.

    Where I cannot criticise many of the alarmists on this forum who disagree with my skepticism, is that at least most of you guys on MB can see “unintended consequences” when they are put under your nose. This especially applies to utopian urban and transport planning. MB’s climate alarmists are largely an honourable exception in that they actually can see the “unintended consequences” aspect to this particular “CO2 mitigation” strategy.

    Now, my sense of smell is always aroused when rent-seeking vested interests are served by a particular policy mania that has reached a kind of critical momentum. I do not think the urban and transport policy vested interests rent-seeking activities are confined to alleged “need to contain urban sprawl” for non-CO2-mitigation reasons. The CO2 mitigation aspect is front and centre of those reasons.

    Don’t just launch a knee-jerk ad hominem about the following item: just start connecting a few more of the same dots that I have.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/19/The-One-Percent-Capitalism

  8. The biggest give-away in all these arguments, is that as first world nations hobble their own industries, production is diverted even faster than otherwise to developing nations that actually have more carbon intensive economies.

    Refer Prins, Rayner et al, “How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course”.

    Also Prins and Rayner: “The Wrong Trousers: Radically Re-thinking Climate Policy”.

    The fact that so many climate alarmist are prepared to shrug this off with “oh, that’s a worthy objective anyway” – Pachauri himself has said so – is a massive give-away about their sincerity. Not saying this is true of the more alarmist MB commenters as a rule though.

  9. Where I cannot criticise many of the alarmists on this forum who disagree with my skepticism, is that at least most of you guys on MB can see “unintended consequences” when they are put under your nose. This especially applies to utopian urban and transport planning. MB’s climate alarmists are largely an honourable exception in that they actually can see the “unintended consequences” aspect to this particular “CO2 mitigation” strategy.

    Now, my sense of smell is always aroused when rent-seeking vested interests are served by a particular policy mania that has reached a kind of critical momentum. I do not think the urban and transport policy vested interests rent-seeking activities are confined to alleged “need to contain urban sprawl” for non-CO2-mitigation reasons. The CO2 mitigation aspect is front and centre of those reasons.

    Don’t just launch a knee-jerk ad hominem about the following item: just start connecting a few more of the same dots that I have.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/19/The-One-Percent-Capitalism

  10. Sorry guys, you’ve jumped the shark here.

    Having lived through the utter disaster of the Major govt in which Gummer played a thoroughly reprehensible role as Agriculture minister and having seen him spend the 2000s playing a first class rent seeking game with ‘the environment’.

    This guy is the insiders insider in the UK political establishment, a central planner who as chair of the commons all party group on planning and architecture was instrumental in maintaining the green belt madness in the name of ‘sustainability’

    The so called ‘independent’ committee on climate change he ‘chairs’ is anything but, it’s just another civil service permanent government vehicle to ride roughshod over democratic accountability and bypass scrutiny.

    What Gummer is actually saying is,

    “how dare you uppity colonials cast aspersions upon us, the all knowing, who know what’s good for you”

    “How dare you stand on your own two feet and not culturally cringe as you should”

    No different than same patronising patrician mentality which condemned 10s of thousands of Australians to pointless slaughter in 1914-18 and again 20 years later.

    Seriously guys, you really need to do better than quote this piece of work approvingly.

  11. But the government is doing something – taxes steadily rising, unemployment rising, electricity costs rising etc etc. People are actually starting to drive less and may be considering using less electricity. Beef consumption is also falling.

  12. There is a long skinny argument further up this thread about the effectiveness of carbon taxes.

    Calculations from Christopher Monckton about Aussie’s carbon tax:

    If all the world’s measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions were as cost-ineffective as the Australian Government’s proposed policy, forestalling just 1 C° of global warming would cost the world $1.7 quadrillion.

    Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet.

    That cost is equivalent to almost 60% of global GDP to 2020.

    That is 22 times the maximum estimate of the welfare loss from doing nothing about the climate, which is just 2.7% of global 21st-century GDP.

    It is 83 times the minimum welfare-loss estimate of just 0.7% of GDP.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/gillards-tax-on-carbon-pollution-the-facts/

  13. Thanks for posting this video HandH. People act in their own self interest, it depends where they locate themselves – a force of Nature, or a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making them happy

  14. for those that are new to forums (and those that just aren’t aware). Paid bloggers WILL ‘debate’ and accuse eachother on said forum to elevate their position and visibility. ‘People’ (paid ‘alternative media’ shills) like David Icke and Alex Jones have been doing this for over a decade. Migtronix and Dr Smithy are doing the same. All the actual science (scarce as it is) points to a global cooling scenario (& even that is dubious, but less so than warming). The displacement programs (e.g. fake wars, UN soil policy) in equatorial countries also point to the apparent belief in a cooling scenario by TPTB. Guess what doesn’t work in a sun deprived and cold climate? Wind turbines and solar plants. The ONLY thing Abbot has done correctly is pull those policies. Of course you WILL hear Lords complain and wannabe ‘alternative media’ stars (mig ‘n’ smithy) prop eachother up with fake dialectical, go-nowhere arguments. Don’t feed the trolls.